In reply to yamaha:
oops
In reply to yamaha:
oops
Beer Baron wrote:aircooled wrote: The government is now distributing propaganda? Well, they are WAY behind a bunch of "news" and radio shows! If you think propaganda is only coming from the government, you are being very naive.Yup. Plus the advertisements for military recruiting are great propaganda pieces as well. I love the not-so-subtle messages: "Join the Army/Navy/Airforce/Marines. You'll spend your time delivering aid to 3rd world countries. No. Really. You won't go into situations where you get shot at and shoot back at people who look like civilians. We promise!"
I've worked with thousands of military members over the last 15 years from SOF to regular E1 sailors to flag officers. None of them has any misconceptions about what the risks of military service are, and none of them joined thinking they they'd just be delivering aid.
That said, the military as a whole does spend the majority of its time "helping" (with aid, training, medical, HA/DR, etc) than it does fighting - especially the Navy. The fighting is just the most visible part.
Let's be real: No company advertises itself by saying "come buy our products, they are actually lousy and overpriced" or "come work for us, we'll stuff you in a lousy cubicle with no windows and pay you as little as possible." That's marketing, not propaganda. I don't see how it's any different for the military to emphasize the parts of itself that people like. I hardly think the Navy could get any recruits saying "you'll be stuffed four-high on little tiny bunks on a ship for months at a time, could get seasick, and there are no hot women there, by the way." 
NOHOME wrote: If you need to know the truth on any world-news matter there is a simple solution. Just tune in to the famous Fox News Station and then go directly to Al Jazeera.
I'm sure we've all seen Fox News' sensationalism, but just out of curiosity - how much time have you spent watching Al-Jazeera America? I've actually found it to be surprisingly less biased than either end of the US media spectrum (Fox, CNBC, CNN, etc), and with surprisingly good reporting on foreign affairs and international news far outside of the middle east.
Obviously it isn't reporting on abuses in the gulf states that are controlled by the A-J owners, but it's not some "terrorist" network as most Americans who have never watched it seem to think.
Also find it funny that you list it as the "opposite end of the spectrum" from Fox News. If anything, Al Jazeera is a fairly conservative media source, not a liberal one.
Al-Jazeera is pro-Arab. Other than that they straight down the pike. No right or left bias.
Fox is so far right they couldn't get back to the middle if they tried.
Statements made on FOX
True: (10%)
Mostly True: (10%)
Half True: (19%)
Mostly False: (19%)
False: (32%)
Pants on Fire10 (9%)
(Source: politifact.com)
FoxNews tells 60% lies, the worst of any of the majors. I find it amusing that they are the leader in 24/7 news coverage. Sad actually this what the highest percentage of Americans choose to get their news from.
MSNBC was created to mimic the biased reporting of FoxNews but to the left. The issue is the demographic of liberal and a conservative are different. Which is why MSNBC has never done as well as F.N.
All the rest sell sensationalism no matter how it slanted. Although in Dec 2013 CNN's Zucker said he wants to go to more editorial content like FoxNews in order to be commercially competitive.
Except for HLN. I have no clue what the berkeley they are doing.
Personally I like BBC America. The coverage is a little thinner and it is pro-European but I like the format.
Ian F wrote:yamaha wrote: In reply to Flight Service: I'd say its actually gone quite well.....but then again, the usual inflammatory comment makers have been fairly absent....and we're only on page 2...
It was going pretty well until FoS started spewing, provided a useless link and didn't find a source offering analysis of any other media outlet's credibility.
The boy just can't control himself when it comes to girly pics or politics.
yamaha wrote:PHeller wrote: So is NPR propaganda because it receives government money? Are libraries propaganda then?The only thing I can note on this, libraries don't exactly pick and choose sides in the US political climate like NPR does.....I sometimes have to turn off All Things Considered and The World due to blatantly obvious political motive. So is NPR propaganda? Perhaps. Could we ever find out? Probably not.
I've yelled and screamed at NPR more than any other radio station by a long shot. But I'll usually still listen, maybe it's in the way it's presented...I don't know. But I have more of a tolerance for it than the vast majority of other "news talk" radio shows. I usually just end up listening to sports talk. Oh and I've been listening to NPR since high school and it has always been slanted that way in my opinion.
I refuse to listen to NPR. I want nothing to do with Schwetty balls.
irish44j wrote:NOHOME wrote: If you need to know the truth on any world-news matter there is a simple solution. Just tune in to the famous Fox News Station and then go directly to Al Jazeera.I'm sure we've all seen Fox News' sensationalism, but just out of curiosity - how much time have you spent watching Al-Jazeera America? I've actually found it to be surprisingly less biased than either end of the US media spectrum (Fox, CNBC, CNN, etc), and with surprisingly good reporting on foreign affairs and international news far outside of the middle east. Obviously it isn't reporting on abuses in the gulf states that are controlled by the A-J owners, but it's not some "terrorist" network as most Americans who have never watched it seem to think. Also find it funny that you list it as the "opposite end of the spectrum" from Fox News. If anything, Al Jazeera is a fairly conservative media source, not a liberal one.
To be honest, I gave up on pretty much all media news about 12 years ago. I was never naive to take news at face value, but it really got to the point where has become a farce. To outside observers, the stuff that comes out of a Fox News broadcast has the same credibility as what comes from Kim Jong-un' news releases.
There is a lot of stuff on NPR that isn't really political at all, and your local public radio station may have local news that is less (or more) biased than national news.
What I like about public radio is that it isn't crap. Too many of the AM stations are all opinion, all the time. Sometimes it nice to hear RadioLab or This American Life, TedTalk Hour, On Point or shows that aren't all screaming at one side or the other.
Beer Baron wrote: Yup. Plus the advertisements for military recruiting are great propaganda pieces as well. I love the not-so-subtle messages: "Join the Army/Navy/Airforce/Marines. You'll spend your time delivering aid to 3rd world countries. No. Really. You won't go into situations where you get shot at and shoot back at people who look like civilians. We promise!"
I think the way they make them look like video game ads is much more disturbing. My and my dad, on two separate occasions, saw a new recruitment ad for the first time and were arguing over whether it was for an upcoming Crysis or Halo game.
Something like this happened in an episode of Invader Zim before it happened for real.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Meh, the ones who see that and are either too stupid to understand life doesn't have respawns or tells them upon signing up that "He just wants to PWNZORS NOOBS" I have yet to meet a recruiter that wouldn't burst out laughing and show the kid a door...
oldsaw wrote:Ian F wrote:It was going pretty well until FoS started spewing, provided a useless link and didn't find a source offering analysis of any other media outlet's credibility.yamaha wrote: In reply to Flight Service: I'd say its actually gone quite well.....but then again, the usual inflammatory comment makers have been fairly absent....and we're only on page 2...
Blah Blah Blah, My screen saver has more character than you. 
People yell at NPR but study after study show them to be the most accurate and un-biased of all the domestic news outlets.
Cognitive Dissonance is big problem these days on each side.
Enough of all this talk I am going back Tumblr
Edit: Since Google is too hard for Oldsaw
I am pretty sure he was criticizing the SOURCE of that information, not the information.
Your statement that Fox is the most watched news source I am pretty certain is incorrect. It is the most watched CABLE news. I am pretty sure the non-cable news kicks their butt pretty good (cannot find an easy source for that strangely).
BTW - here is an interesting assessment of the bias of news sources. No idea the "bias" of the site, but it seems pretty accurate on its face.
http://www.allsides.com/about-bias
Nice to see CNN rated as neutral, as I have suspected, but many seem to think they lean left (I know, I know, the site is probably funded by CNN....)
It rates NPR as neutral also BTW (ducks out of the way).
In reply to aircooled:
Yes but then I would get to post something picking on Oldsaw and then post a link to Tumblr would I?
Sorry for the confusion, I put 24/7 news. I meant Cable News outlets.
All good fun and games. The way I see it, if you want to be lied to, you have FoxNews and MSNBC. If you want the truth said in a sensational voice you have many options. If you want the truth and actually miss it because you were lulled to sleep you have NPR.
Let's just all admit we want the fight scene from Anchorman to happen.
As much as conservatives claim NPR to be liberal, they certainly can't argue with it being truthful.
Which can't be said about the majority of the angry AM talk show hosts and Fox entertainment and opinion channel. That is scary since it's so popular. I guess people just like to be angry all the time.
In reply to Cone_Junkie:
The opinions things are universally hilarious.....there was a CNN one a little while back claiming 4H programs were a detriment to children because it taught them to slaughter animals.....
Cone_Junkie wrote: As much as conservatives claim NPR to be liberal, they certainly can't argue with it being truthful. Which can't be said about the majority of the angry AM talk show hosts and Fox entertainment and opinion channel. That is scary since it's so popular. I guess people just like to be angry all the time.
NPR is very bad about stating opinion as fact. They just don't do it an in your face screaming way. Instead they'll have two or three reasonable sounding people stating things plainly and in a way that sounds like it's based on hard data, meanwhile I'm catching myself going, hmm, that's not accurate, that's an opinion why are you presenting it as fact, then after a while I find myself talking to the radio and then yelling. It's been like that ever since I can remember.
If a person can't see the bias at NPR, in the stories they run and how they are presented, they are completely blind.
But looking back NPR is how I found out that I'm not a liberal. I don't listen to the right wing talk shows and I don't watch cable news. I get angry at NPR and listen to sports talk.
aircooled wrote: I am pretty sure he was criticizing the SOURCE of that information, not the information. Your statement that Fox is the most watched news source I am pretty certain is incorrect. It is the most watched CABLE news. I am pretty sure the non-cable news kicks their butt pretty good (cannot find an easy source for that strangely). BTW - here is an interesting assessment of the bias of news sources. No idea the "bias" of the site, but it seems pretty accurate on its face. http://www.allsides.com/about-bias Nice to see CNN rated as neutral, as I have suspected, but many seem to think they lean left (I know, I know, the site is probably funded by CNN....) It rates NPR as neutral also BTW (ducks out of the way).
I question everything, even politifact's ability to discern FOX fact or fiction when the content is heavy on an analysis/opinion presentation. Accurate and honest reporting should be based on the veracity of who, what, when, where, how and why sources. When media concentrates on "why", opinion is an interpretation of "facts, wide open to bias and should never be considered "news".
The criticism of FOX is warranted but its' most vocal critics always seem to be heavily biased in an opposite direction. I get it, but it's pushing the easy-button and used by those who are so intellectually lazy that they ignore the low-hanging fruit, go straight for the bruised and rotten stuff on the ground and then proclaim it as fresh.
As far as NPR, Nick is on to something here:
Nick_Comstock said: NPR is very bad about stating opinion as fact. They just don't do it an in your face screaming way. Instead they'll have two or three reasonable sounding people stating things plainly and in a way that sounds like it's based on hard data, meanwhile I'm catching myself going, hmm, that's not accurate, that's an opinion why are you presenting it as fact, then after a while I find myself talking to the radio and then yelling. It's been like that ever since I can remember.
Thing is, though, is that this is hardly the sole domain of public radio.
Look at the current media environment to that of just a few years ago. We had a frenzy over the "outing" of Valerie Plame and news sources plastered it on front pages and featured stories on nightly tv news on a daily basis. It's almost as if they wanted a White House scandal that would derail those evil bastards. Too bad they were disappointed when the only conviction was of a mid-level polical hack who couldn't keep his testimonies straight. Hell, the prosecutor AND the media all but ignored the fact that the "outing" was done (without any malice) by a prominent figure who received only a passing glance.
Fast forward to today and we have a media intent on ignoring a trail of incompetence enveloped by the stench of cover-up. The bias isn't shown by how things are reported but that they are reported in minute amounts, if at all. Once upon a time, the First Amemdment was guaranteed so "media" could keep government in check and prevent its' abuses. Now, the majority of sources just willingly accept government spin as gospel and accept it as fact. That's a huge steaming pile of BS.
Some of you should check out the travails of former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and see what happened when she uncovered unscrupulous government behaviors.
In reply to oldsaw:
Did she die in a private plane crash?
About Politifact, time and time again people have tried to prove them biased and they just aren't. They compare what is said to base facts. There are a few facts check sites out there, this is just one I frequent. Some times I use Snoopes for the non-news stuff. In the end, I wasn't about to get wrapped around the axle on such a fun subject.
Dems have theirs (MSNBC) who lies 42% of the time, the GOP has theirs (FoxNews) who lies 60% of the time. I think fighting over the legitimacy over the amount of lies each has just because your side gets called out is silly. The fact that both are so bad that this has to be done is a disgrace. NPR is fine. The number of people that have attacked NPR for being liberal is hilarious. That just tells me that people who care about the truth are liberal. I don't think that is the message the attackers are wanting to send, but that is a consequence, and many a liberal has picked up on it.
In the end, as long as people are looking for facts I would be happy, but by looking at the ratings of the biased news agencies, they just want their opinions spewed back at them in a different voice...
Kind of like my wife.
In reply to Flight Service:
Small planes have such horrible safety records.......
Flight Service wrote: That just tells me that people who care about the truth are liberal.
Agree.
Now do as Professor Elemental says... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8DGFh0aNKI
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
yamaha wrote: In reply to Cone_Junkie: The opinions things are universally hilarious.....there was a CNN one a little while back claiming 4H programs were a detriment to children because it taught them to slaughter animals.....
ya can't make this stuff up folks.
In reply to Flight Service:
Flight Service said: Did she die in a private plane crash?
Too clever by half...
Here, enlighten yourself: http://www.c-span.org/video/?319889-1/qa-sharyl-attkisson It's an hour-long interview with someone who has deep insight into the current state of journalism and its' interaction with government.
Flight Service said: About Politifact, time and time again people have tried to prove them biased and they just aren't. They compare what is said to base facts
I'm not questioning the accuracy. I'm questioning the choice to view hyperbolic, partisan rants as "news". FOX programming leans heavily on personalities and in its' own twisted vision of "balanced", includes liberal guests with "extreme", opposing views. Is Politifact using that kind of crap in its' analysis? If so, that means the "lies" come from both sides and FOX gets credited with broadcasting looney toon views from conservatives and liberals.
Flight Service said: I think fighting over the legitimacy over the amount of lies each has just because your side gets called out is silly.
So quit doing it...
Flight Service said: That just tells me that people who care about the truth are liberal. I don't think that is the message the attackers are wanting to send, but that is a consequence, and many a liberal has picked up on it.
Maybe you should hang with fewer liberals and learn something about those you choose to ridicule. Do that and someday you might be able to answer the question "Why does a fish not know its' wet?".
Flight Service said: In the end, as long as people are looking for facts I would be happy, but by looking at the ratings of the biased news agencies, they just want their opinions spewed back at them in a different voice...
At least on that, we can agree!
You'll need to log in to post.
